• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Bulletin de la Societe Zoologique de France >PEUT-ON PARLER D'ESPECES DOMESTIQUES?
【24h】

PEUT-ON PARLER D'ESPECES DOMESTIQUES?

机译：我们可以谈谈本地物种吗？

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Darwin used breeds of domestic animals as models in studying species because, according to him, there was no basic difference between species and lower-ranking taxo-nomic units; the laws governing their formation are the same - whether they are called species or races is just a question of terminology. The criteria of similarity/difference, descent and interfecondity are then studied and it is shown that none of them establishes a clear division between domestic and wild forms. Thus certain domestic animals resemble very closely their wild ancestors while others can be very different. The former should be grouped in the same species and the others should be placed in a separate one, or sometimes even several; but these differences are evolving too fast or fortuitously to define a species. The descent is also unclear: if domestication happens several times, there is polyphyletism of domestic lines. Furthermore these lines interchange often with their wild counterparts or among themselves, so none is ever pure, which means that each time a breeder decides to isolate a particular herd, we should define it as a new species. The final criterion is that all domestic varieties continue to be interfertile with their wild ancestor, without ever being sterile among themselves. In conclusion no domestic form really satisfies the conditions which would make it a real species. However, tracking a line of descent is interesting from an operational point of view: the existence of distinct lines is probably the essential nature of the creation and continuance of domestic races. Under these circumstances we have to make up our minds to use an anthropological criterion. It may seem unusual to include the wishes of breeders in an objective definition of species, but we are justified in considering breeding techniques as being real and efficient functions because the animals are subject to an artificial selection process. Depending on the breeder, lines are kept more or less isolated. Hence the more pronounced the artificial isolation, the more the expression "domestic species" is justified. Domestic animals can therefore be divided into three categories which are far from being clear-cut: only one species, if the animals being raised continue to interbreed regularly with their wild counterparts; the same species name, but with domestic lines having a separate status, if there is a moderate amount of isolation; two separate species if the separation of the domesticated form is total and any interaction is accidental.
机译：达尔文说，达尔文将家畜的品种用作研究物种的模型，因为据他所说，物种与排名较低的分类单位之间没有基本区别；控制它们形成的法律是相同的-无论它们被称为物种还是种族，仅是术语问题。然后研究相似性/差异性，后裔和异性性的标准，结果表明它们之间没有一个明确的区分家庭形式和野生形式。因此，某些家畜非常类似于它们的野生祖先，而另一些则可能非常不同。前者应归为同一物种，而其他应归为一个物种，有时甚至是几个物种。但是这些差异演变得太快或很偶然，无法定义一个物种。血统也不清楚：如果驯化发生几次，则说明家系存在多重性。此外，这些品系经常与野生的品系或彼此之间互换，因此没有一个是纯的，这意味着育种者每次决定隔离特定的牛群时，我们都应将其定义为一个新物种。最终的标准是，所有国内变种继续对其野生祖先具有干扰性，而彼此之间绝不间断。总之，没有任何一种家养形式真正满足其成为真正物种的条件。但是，从操作的角度来看，追踪下降的路线很有趣：不同路线的存在可能是创造和继续国内比赛的本质。在这种情况下，我们必须下定决心使用人类学标准。在物种的客观定义中包含育种者的意愿似乎很不寻常，但是我们有理由认为育种技术是真实有效的功能，因为动物需要人工选择。根据繁殖者的不同，种系或多或少保持隔离状态。因此，人为隔离越明显，“国内种类”这一表述就越合理。因此，家畜可分为三类，这很容易被弄清楚：如果饲养的动物继续与野生动物定期交配，则只有一种。相同的物种名称，但如果隔离程度适中，则具有单独状态的家系；如果完全分开了驯化形式，并且任何相互作用都是偶然的，则可以分为两个单独的物种。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号